FROM THIS EPISODE

Today, the US Supreme Court took up affirmative action and the effort to equalize educational opportunity in a diverse society with a history of racial discrimination. We hear what the Court heard about race-based and race-neutral strategies. Also, today's Republican hearing on Hillary Clinton's State Department and diplomatic security in Libya.

Banner image: Students calling for diversity protest outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Photo by Jose Luis Magaua/Reuters

Since the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the State Department has changed its explanation of what really happened at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Today, Republicans on Capitol Hill called an oversight hearing. As we begin this conversation, the House Oversight Committee hearing, which is at least an indirect attack on the Obama Administration, is still underway. Anne Gearan is diplomacy correspondent for the Washington Post.

In the Grutter case almost ten years ago, a divided US Supreme Court rejected racial quotas in college admissions. But it said race could be one factor in the effort to diversify student bodies and make up for the history of racial discrimination. It was a divided decision, and the court said it would take up the issue again. Today, in the case of Abigail Fisher, a white student rejected by the University of Texas, it made good on its promise. If not affirmative action based on race, then what? What about economic class? Or should academic merit be the only standard for deciding who gets in, especially to more selective institutions? We hear arguments with far-reaching implications about guaranteeing equal opportunity in an increasingly diverse society.